Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response after the complainant reported food hygiene concerns. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. We will not investigate the complaint about a data breach because the complainant can complain to the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council wrongly assumed she was making a complaint and released her name to other people. Mrs X wants a sincere apology. She also wants action taken against the officer and regarding the data breach.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner (ICO) if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X contacted the Council to report concerns regarding the preparation of food linked to an organisation she belongs to. Some of her concerns included food not being stored correctly and the use of untrained volunteers who lacked food safety knowledge.
6. The Council logged it as a food hygiene complaint. The Council visited and explained what improvements were needed. As part of the response the Council contacted other people linked to the organisation.
7. Mrs X complained. She said the Council had disclosed she was the person who raised concerns. She said this had created significant problems for her within the organisation and the subsequent stress had a negative impact on her health and ability to work. Mrs X also said she only raised concerns with the Council and did not expect the Council to treat it as a complaint.
8. The Council apologised for a delayed response to her complaint but denied disclosing her name. Its data protection officer reviewed the case and found no evidence of a data breach. The Council invited Mrs X to complain to the ICO. The Council also explained that, given the issues Mrs X had raised, it was correct that officers logged it as a complaint and took action.
9. I will not investigate the alleged data breach because Mrs X can contact the ICO. It is reasonable for her to do this because the ICO is the correct body to consider complaints about data breaches.
10. I also will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mrs X may not have intended to complain but, given the issues she reported, and the potential impact on public health, I see nothing to suggest fault in the Council’s decision to log the concerns as a complaint and act in response. If the Council had not acted, and people became ill, then the Council could have been open to criticism for not acting on information that had been supplied.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Mrs X can complain to the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman